MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1498792559 · doi:10.20381/ruor-3739

Applying Supervised Learning Algorithms and a New Feature Selection Method to Predict Coronary Artery Disease

2014· preprint· en· W1498792559 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2014
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom forestFeature selectionArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Classifier (UML)Feature vectorDimensionality reductionReceiver operating characteristicComputer scienceAlgorithmMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From a fresh data science perspective, this thesis discusses the prediction of coronary artery disease based on Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) from the Ontario Heart Genomics Study (OHGS). First, the thesis explains the k-Nearest Neighbour (k-NN) and Random Forest learning algorithms, and includes a complete proof that k-NN is universally consistent in finite dimensional normed vector spaces. Second, the thesis introduces two dimensionality reduction techniques: Random Projections and a new method termed Mass Transportation Distance (MTD) Feature Selection. Then, this thesis compares the performance of Random Projections with k-NN against MTD Feature Selection and Random Forest for predicting artery disease. Results demonstrate that MTD Feature Selection with Random Forest is superior to Random Projections and k-NN. Random Forest is able to obtain an accuracy of 0.6660 and an area under the ROC curve of 0.8562 on the OHGS dataset, when 3335 SNPs are selected by MTD Feature Selection for classification. This area is considerably better than the previous high score of 0.608 obtained by Davies et al. in 2010 on the same dataset.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Same topicImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207